Kinematics of saddle and rider in high‐level dressage horses performing collected walk on a treadmill

Reasons for performing the study: The kinematics of the saddle and rider have not been thoroughly described at the walk. Objective: To describe saddle and rider movements during collected walk in a group of high‐level dressage horses and riders. Methods: Seven high‐level dressage horses and riders were subjected to kinematic measurements while performing collected walk on a treadmill. Movements of the saddle and rider's pelvis, upper body and head were analysed in a rigid body model. Projection angles were determined for the rider's arms and legs, and the neck and trunk of the horse. Distances between selected markers were used to describe rider position in relation to the horse and saddle. Results: During the first half of each hindlimb stance the saddle rotated cranially around the transverse axis, i.e. the front part was lowered in relation to the hind part and the rider's pelvis rotated caudally, i.e. in the opposite direction. The rider's seat moved forwards while the rider's neck and feet moved backwards. During the second half of hindlimb stance these movements were reversed. Conclusion: The saddles and riders of high‐level dressage horses follow a common movement pattern at collected walk. The movements of the saddle and rider are clearly related to the movements of the horse, both within and outside the sagittal plane. Potential relevance: The literature suggests that the rider's influence on the movement pattern of the horse is the strongest at walk. For assessment of the horse‐rider interaction in dressage horses presented for unsatisfactory performance, evaluations at walk may therefore be the most rewarding. Basic knowledge about rider and saddle movements in well‐performing horses is likely to be supportive to this task.     

A retrospective survey of riders' opinions of the use of saddle pads in horses

Horse riders have used layers between saddles and their horse's back since ancient times. Despite the apparent common usage of such layers, most research regarding pressures under horses' saddles seems to have been conducted without such layers present. An online survey of equestrian riders was conducted to quantify the use of such layers and how the layers behaved during use. This produced 1,011 responses from participants in 16 equestrian activities. More than 98% of respondents reported they used some form of layer between their horse's back and the saddle. Differences in layer usage were associated with the respondent's preferred riding discipline and the wither type of their horse. Compensation for perceived saddle fit problems was commonly cited as a reason for using layers. Although horse comfort was nominated by 87.5% of respondents as a reason for using a layer between saddle and the horse's back, many respondents (45%) reported using more than 1 layer. This often resulted in layers thicker than 1 cm, which paradoxically could compromise horse welfare. Half of the respondents reported that the layer between the saddle and the horse's back slipped during riding. Although some significant risk factors for this slippage were identified, they are deemed not to be definitive because of similar factors being identified by the group who did not report layer slippage. These results suggest that incorrect usage of layer between saddles and horses' backs can sabotage good saddle design and compromise equine welfare. Future research on the layers used between the saddles and horses' back is warranted. The question of whether using thicker layers can create greater pressure under saddles or improve rider–horse communication also needs to be investigated.     

Comparison of pressure distribution under a conventional saddle and a treeless saddle at sitting trot

It can be a challenge to find a conventional saddle that is a good fit for both horse and rider. An increasing number of riders are purchasing treeless saddles because they are thought to fit a wider range of equine back shapes, but there is only limited research to support this theory. The objective of this study was to compare the total force and pressure distribution patterns on the horse's back with conventional and treeless saddles. The experimental hypotheses were that the conventional saddle would distribute the force over a larger area with lower mean and maximal pressures than the treeless saddle. Eight horses were ridden by a single rider at sitting trot with conventional and treeless saddles. An electronic pressure mat measured total force, area of saddle contact, maximal pressure and area with mean pressure >11 kPa for 10 strides with each saddle. Univariate ANOVA (P<0.05) was used to detect differences between saddles. Compared with the treeless saddle, the conventional saddle distributed the rider's bodyweight over a larger area, had lower mean and maximal pressures and fewer sensors recording mean pressure >11 kPa. These findings suggested that the saddle tree was effective in distributing the weight of the saddle and rider over a larger area and in avoiding localized areas of force concentration.     

The influence of rider:horse bodyweight ratio and rider-horse-saddle fit on equine gait and behaviour: A pilot study

The effect of rider weight on equine welfare and performance requires further investigation. The objective of this prospective, cross-over, randomised trial was to assess gait and behavioural responses of horses to riders of similar ability, but different bodyweights. Six nonlame horses in regular work were ridden by each of four riders: Light (L), Moderate (M), Heavy (H) and Very Heavy (VH). Saddle fit was assessed subjectively throughout the study. Each horse was ridden twice by riders L and M, and once by rider H. Rider VH rode five horses once and one twice. Each horse-rider combination undertook a standardised, 30-min ‘dressage-test' which was abandoned if we observed lameness grade ≥ 3/8 in one limb, grade ≥ 2/8 in ≥ 2 limbs, or ≥ 10/24 behavioural markers of pain. Horses were reassessed in hand 45–60 min after any abandonment. Mean rider bodyweights, body mass index (BMI) values and rider:horse bodyweight percentages for the L, M, H and VH riders were respectively: 60.8, 77.8, 91.0, 142.1 kg; 23.2, 28.0, 26.3, 46.9 kg/m²; 10.0–11.7%, 12.8–15.0%, 15.3–17.9%, 23.6–27.5%. All 13 H and VH rider tests (lameness, n = 12; behaviour, n = 1) and one of 12 M rider tests (lameness) were abandoned. Lameness was confirmed using inertial measurement unit data. All horses trotted sound after test abandonment and completed the study moving well when ridden. Limitations of the study were saddle fit was not ideal in all horse-rider combinations and abandonment criteria were subjective. The conclusions and clinical relevance of the study were that large riders can induce temporary lameness and behaviours consistent with musculoskeletal pain. This may relate to rider bodyweight and/or weight distribution. Riders M and H had similar BMI but markedly different test abandonment rates, therefore bodyweight is likely to be more relevant than BMI. Further work is required to determine if horse fitness, adaptation to heavier weights and better saddle fit for heavier/taller riders will increase horses' weight-carrying capacity.     

Reducing Peak Pressures Under the Saddle Panel at the Level of the 10th to 13th Thoracic Vertebrae May Be Associated With Improved Gait Features,Even When Saddles Are Fitted to Published Guidelines

Saddle–horse interaction is increasingly linked with back pain, performance, and welfare issues. Saddle fit and work quality influence alterations in back shape with exercise at thoracic vertebra 13 level (T13) with exercise. The objectives of experiments were to: determine a repeatable zone and stride point of peak pressure under saddles fitted to industry guidelines; compare peak pressure in this zone and limb kinematics in collected trot between horses own saddles (S) and a saddle designed to reduce pressure at T10–T13 (F); compare thoracolumbar width change after exercise between S and F and with F after 3 months use. Elite dressage (n = 13) horses/riders with no lameness/performance problem had pressure mat data acquired under S, fitted by four qualified saddle fitters, to determine zones of peak pressure. Pressure mat data at T10–T13, forelimb/hindlimb protraction, and carpal/tarsal flexion acquired using simultaneous high-speed motion capture, and difference in thoracolumbar dimensions (T8, T18 at 3, 15 cm) between before and after exercise was compared between S and F. Peak pressures were consistently detected axially around T10–T13 (sensors A4–A7, H4–H7). Peak pressures were significantly less with F than S for each cell and pooled (55%–68% difference. P = .01 to <.0001). Saddle F was associated with 13% greater forelimb and 22.7% hindlimb protraction, 3.5° greater carpal and 4.3° tarsal flexion (P = .02 to .0001), and greater increase in thoracolumbar dimensions after exercise (P = .01 to <.0001). Saddles fitted to published guidelines may still have a nonideal interface with horses. Reducing peak pressures around T10–T13 was associated with improved limb kinematics in trot and greater thoracolumbar expansion after exercise.     

Gait abnormalities and ridden horse behaviour in a convenience sample of the United Kingdom ridden sports horse and leisure horse population

The objectives of this study were to compare horses’ gaits in hand and when ridden; to assess static and dynamic saddle fit for each horse and rider; to apply the Ridden Horse Pain Ethogram (RHpE) and relate the findings to gait abnormalities consistent with musculoskeletal pain, rider position and balance and saddle fit; and to document noseband use and its relationship with mouth opening during ridden exercise. Data were acquired prospectively from a convenience sample of horses believed by their owners to be working comfortably. All assessments were subjective. Gait in hand and when ridden were evaluated independently, by two assessors, and compared using McNemar’s test. Static tack fit and noseband type were recorded. Movement of the saddle during ridden exercise, rider position, balance and size relative to the saddle was documented. RHpE scores were based on assessment of video recordings. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was used to determine factors which influenced the RHpE scores. Of 148 horses, 28.4% were lame in hand, whereas 62.2% were lame ridden (P<0.001). Sixty per cent of horses showed gait abnormalities in canter. The median RHpE score was 8/24 (interquartile range 5, 9; range 0, 15). There was a positive association between lameness and the RHpE score (P<0.001). Riding School horses had higher RHpE scores compared with General Purpose horses (P = 0.001). Saddles with tight tree points (P = 0.001) and riders seated at the back of the saddle rather than the middle (P = 0.001) were associated with higher RHpE scores. Horses wearing crank cavesson compared with cavesson nosebands had higher RHpE scores (P = 0.006). There was no difference in mouth opening, as defined by the RHpE, in horses with a noseband with the potential to restrict mouth opening, compared with a correctly fitted cavesson noseband, or no noseband. It was concluded that lameness or gait abnormalities in canter may be missed unless horses are assessed ridden.     

Rider and Horse Salivary Cortisol Levels During Competition and Impact on Performance

During competition, stress may affect riders and horses. This stress can affect health, welfare, and/or performance. Our aim was to quantify stress levels during competition in horses and riders. We also searched relationships between these stress levels and performance. Twenty riders and 23 horses were followed up during a show-jumping event (26 courses) held at a riding school. Regular saliva samples taken from horses and riders were assayed to evaluate cortisol levels. We studied salivary cortisol evolution during the days of competition. There was no correlation between instantaneous sampling on horses and their riders. However, we did find a parallel between horse and rider salivary cortisol evolution curves, with a similar peak, reached 20 minutes after the course. The increase was stronger in riders than in horses. Correlations appeared between salivary cortisol concentration and performance, but stress in both partners seems to have an opposite influence on performance. Riders who showed a higher salivary cortisol increase were awarded more penalties, whereas horses that showed a higher increase in salivary cortisol performed better. Stress level measurement in rider–horse pairs would thus lead to improvement in competition conditions and performance, for horses as well as for riders.     

The effect of physiotherapy intervention to the pelvic region of experienced riders on seated postural stability and the symmetry of pressure distribution to the saddle: A preliminary study

It is commonplace for trainers and judges to comment that riders are “crooked” or “collapsed in the hip.” This asymmetrical posture will likely have a significant effect on stability/balance and may subsequently have a detrimental effect on performance. Although the effects of asymmetry on athlete performance has received much attention on human-only sports, there has been little scientific research investigating the influence of these factors in equestrianism, despite anecdotal acknowledgment that “a good seat” and core stability has strong influence on the horse and that crookedness may contribute to high incidences of back pain in both the rider and horse. Asymmetry among athletes has been shown to lessen after physiotherapy intervention (PI).This study examined whether the effect of PI to a group of experienced riders improved seated postural stability (determined as the root mean square [RMS] of the center of pressure signal in the medial–lateral directions) collected for more than 30 seconds and medial–lateral symmetry in force distribution when sat astride a saddle for 10 seconds. Riders were divided into 2 groups either receiving PI to the pelvic region or no intervention. After intervention, the PI group showed a significant reduction in RMS, and initial asymmetry in distribution of pressure was reduced.Preliminary findings suggest that improvements in rider asymmetry and stability can be attenuated through manipulation of the pelvic region. Further work to ascertain the benefits that targeted physiotherapy and training regimes can have on effective horse–rider communication, performance, and behavioral, anatomical, and physiological indicators of welfare in both horse and rider are justified.     

Husbandry,Use, and Orthopedic Health of Horses Owned by Competitive and Leisure Riders in Switzerland

The use of horses in competitive sports receives increasing criticism from the public, mainly due to the potential for injury. However, it is unclear if orthopedic and other health issues are more common in competition horses than those in leisure horses. The aim of this study was to assess husbandry, use, and orthopedic health in Swiss riding horses and to compare these aspects between horses owned by self-identified competitive riders (CR) and leisure riders (LR) in Switzerland. A total of 237 owners completed an online survey providing information on their athletic ambitions, their horse’s husbandry, health, training, and tack. Two experienced veterinarians assessed gait irregularities, muscular development, and back pain in the horses and evaluated saddle fit. Compared with horses owned by competitive riders (CH), a higher proportion of horses kept by leisure riders (LH) were kept unshod, under more natural conditions, and turned out with other horses. LH were exercised less frequently, and LR trained less frequently with instructors. CR reported less time since the last saddle check and the use of more training aids during riding. No differences between the two groups could be found in orthopedic health, muscular development, or back pain, but LH had higher body condition scores and a slightly higher proportion of saddles with at least one fit problem. Our data revealed no increased prevalence of the assessed health problems in competition horses compared with leisure horses in Switzerland. However, suboptimal saddle fit and muscular development, back pain, and gait irregularity are frequent in both groups and deserve more attention.     

Effect of rider experience and evaluator expertise on subjective grading of lameness in sound and unsound sports horses under saddle

The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether rider experience influences the assessment and grading of lameness in horses based on under-saddle gait analysis. Thirteen adult sports horses in active training were included in the study. After a baseline lameness and neurologic examination by the principal investigators, horses were videotaped while being ridden by an experienced and a less experienced rider. A 3-minute video was made for each horse and rider and 26 videos were randomly ordered and compiled on a DVD. Veterinarians with different levels of experience in evaluating lameness and veterinary students viewed the DVD and assigned a lameness score to each horse/rider combination. In a model accounting for the expertise of the evaluator, there was no difference in overall lameness scores between experienced and less experienced riders. This result was consistent for both sound and unsound horses. The overall lameness scores reported by specialists and students, however, differed significantly. The lameness score reported by the study participants while the horse was ridden was significantly associated with the subjective baseline lameness assessment reported by the principal investigators for the same limb when the horse was not under saddle. Additional work is necessary to determine whether riders with even lower skill levels would further alter the balance and motion pattern of the horse and have more influence on subjective grading of lameness.     

Force and pressure distribution beneath a conventional dressage saddle and a treeless dressage saddle with panels

The objective of this study was to compare forces and pressure profiles beneath a conventional dressage saddle with a beechwood spring tree and a treeless dressage saddle without a rigid internal support and incorporating large panels and a gullet. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the force and pressure variables for the two saddles. Six horses were ridden by the same rider using the conventional dressage saddle and the treeless dressage saddle in random order and pressure data were recorded using an electronic pressure mat as the horses trotted in a straight line. The data strings were divided into strides with ten strides analyzed per horse–saddle combination. Variables describing the loaded area, total force, force distribution and pressure distribution were calculated and compared between saddles using a three-factor ANOVA (P < 0.05).Contact area and force variables did not differ between saddles but maximal pressure, mean pressure and area with pressure >11 kPa were higher for the treeless dressage saddle. The panels of the treeless dressage saddle provided contact area and force distribution comparable to a conventional treed saddle but high pressure areas were a consequence of a narrow gullet and highly-sloped panels. It was concluded that, even with a treeless saddle, the size, shape, angulation, and position of the panels must fit the individual horse.     

Influence of rider on lameness in trotting horses

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Equine lameness is commonly evaluated when the horse is being ridden, but the influence of the rider on the lameness has not been documented. OBJECTIVE: To document the effect of 2 riders of different training levels on the vertical movement of the head and croup. METHODS: Twenty mature horses were ridden at trot by an experienced dressage rider and a novice rider, as well as trotted in hand. Kinematic measurements of markers placed on the horse's head and sacral bone were carried out. The asymmetries of the vertical head and sacral bone motion were calculated as lameness parameters and compared with paired t tests. RESULTS: Trotting in hand, 17 horses showed forelimb lameness (1-4/10) and 13 hindlimb lameness (1-2/10). Intra-individually, 11 horses showed significant differences in forelimb lameness and 4 horses showed significant differences in hindlimb lameness when ridden. Over all horses, hindlimb lameness increased significantly under the dressage rider compared to unridden horses. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a rider can alter the degree of lameness; however, its influence cannot be predicted for an individual horse. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: In order to evaluate mild lameness, horses should be evaluated at trot both under saddle and in hand. If lameness is exacerbated, a second rider may be helpful; the level of training of the rider should be taken into consideration.     

Evaluation of poor performance in competition horses: A musculoskeletal perspective. Part 1: Clinical assessment

Lack of willingness to go forward freely, lack of power, shortened steps, stiffness of the cervical or thoracolumbosacral regions are common nonspecific signs of musculoskeletal causes of poor performance in sports horses. Understanding musculoskeletal causes of poor performance requires knowledge of how normal horses move, the requirements of specific work disciplines, the nomenclature used by riders to describe how a horse is performing and the interactions between horses and riders. Determining the underlying causes needs an in‐depth history and clinical assessment, including in hand, on the lunge and ridden. Ridden exercise should include all aspects with which the rider is experiencing problems. Change of the rider can sometimes help to differentiate between horse and rider problems, but most normal horses are compliant and just because a horse goes better for a more skilled rider does not preclude an underlying pain‐related condition. Lungeing and ridden exercise should include not only trot but also transitions and canter which may highlight gait abnormalities not seen at trot. An accurate history combined with thorough clinical examination of the whole horse should permit the establishment of a list of problems requiring further investigation.     

The horse–saddle–rider interaction

Common causes of poor performance in horses include factors related to the horse, the rider and/or the saddle, and their interrelationships remain challenging to determine. Horse-related factors (such as thoracolumbar region pain and/or lameness), rider-related factors (such as crookedness, inability to ride in rhythm with the horse, inability to work the horse in a correct frame to improve core strength and muscular support of the thoracolumbar spine of the horse), and saddle-related factors (such as poor fit causing focal areas of increased pressure) may all contribute to poor performance to varying degrees.Knowledge of the horse–saddle–rider interaction is limited. Traditionally, saddle fit has been evaluated in standing horses, but it is now possible to measure the force and pressure at the interface between the saddle and the horse dynamically. The purpose of this review is critically to discuss available evidence of the interaction between the horse, the rider and the saddle, highlighting not only what is known, but also what is not known.     

Stirrup forces during horse riding: a comparison between sitting and rising trot

Injuries of horses might be related to the force the rider exerts on the horse. To better understand the loading of the horse by a rider, a sensor was developed to measure the force exerted by the rider on the stirrups. In the study, five horses and 23 riders participated. Stirrup forces measured in sitting trot and rising trot were synchronised with rider movements measured from digital films and made dimensionless by dividing them by the bodyweight (BW) of the rider. A Fourier transform of the stirrup force data showed that the signals of both sitting and rising trot contained 2.4 and 4.8 Hz frequencies. In addition, 1.1 and 3.7 Hz frequencies were also present at rising trot. Each stride cycle of trot showed two peaks in stirrup force. The heights of these peaks were 1.17±0.28 and 0.33±0.14 in rising and 0.45±0.24 and 0.38±0.22 (stirrup force (N)/BW of rider (N)) in sitting trot. A significant difference was found between the higher peaks of sitting and rising trot (P<0.001) and between the peaks within a single stride for both riding styles (P<0.001). The higher peak in rising trot occurred during the standing phase of the stride cycle. Riders imposed more force on the stirrups during rising than sitting trot. A combination of stirrup and saddle force data can provide additional information on the total loading of the horse by a rider.     

Evaluation of pressure distribution under an English saddle at walk, trot and canter

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Basic information about the influence of a rider on the equine back is currently lacking. HYPOTHESIS: That pressure distribution under a saddle is different between the walk, trot and canter. METHODS: Twelve horses without clinical signs of back pain were ridden. At least 6 motion cycles at walk, trot and canter were measured kinematically. Using a saddle pad, the pressure distribution was recorded. The maximum overall force (MOF) and centre of pressure (COP) were calculated. The range of back movement was determined from a marker placed on the withers. RESULTS: MOF and COP showed a consistent time pattern in each gait. MOF was 12.1 +/- 1.2 and 243 +/- 4.6 N/kg at walk and trot, respectively, in the ridden horse. In the unridden horse MOF was 172.7 +/- 11.8 N (walk) and 302.4 +/- 33.9 N (trot). At ridden canter, MOF was 27.2 +/- 4.4 N/kg. The range of motion of the back of the ridden horse was significantly lower compared to the unridden, saddled horse. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Analyses may help quantitative and objective evaluation of the interaction between rider and horse as mediated through the saddle. The information presented is therefore of importance to riders, saddlers and equine clinicians. With the technique used in this study, style, skill and training level of different riders can be quantified, which would give the opportunity to detect potentially harmful influences and create opportunities for improvement.     

Effects of Large Saddle Panels on the Biomechanics of the Equine Back During Rising Trot: Preliminary Results

The saddle panels, directly in contact with the horse's back, are likely an important element to optimize the fitting of the saddle, the comfort of the horse, and subsequently, the pain management in dorsalgic horses. The aim of this study was to better understand the effect of the saddle panels on the horse's back, by evaluating a prototype saddle (comfort panels: CP) compared to a standard saddle (STD). The horse's back movements were measured using inertial measurement units (IMUs) fixed at the levels of thoracic vertebrae T6, T12, T16 (under the saddle) and lumbar vertebrae L2 and L5. The centers of mass (COMs) of the horse and the rider and limb's protraction-retraction angles, pressure between saddle and horse's back, and force on the stirrups were measured using respectively 2D motion capture, pressure mat and force sensors in the stirrup leather. Three horses were trotted at the rising trot (sitting: left diagonal-rider seated; standing: right diagonal-rider standing) by the same rider. To compare saddles, linear mixed-effects regression models were used. The estimated means (SE) were calculated. During sitting phase, pressure in the cranial and middle areas of the saddle significantly increased for CP compared to STD (+0.9 (0.2) kPa and +1.0 (0.1) kPa, respectively) whereas caudal pressure decreased (−1.8 (0.4) kPa). Concurrently, the range of motion of angles T12-T16 and T16-L2 under the saddle significantly increased (+1.8 (0.2)° and +2.3 (0.3)°, respectively). The results showed that modifications of the panels' shape not only affect the pressure distribution but also the kinematics of the thoracic and lumbar regions of the equine back.     

The recognition of pain and learned behaviour in horses which buck

Bucking behaviour in horses is potentially dangerous to riders. There is limited information about how bucking behaviour should be investigated by veterinarians. The objectives of this article are to define bucking behaviour, to review the literature relating to bucking and allied behaviours in horses and describe personal observations and to describe an approach to clinical investigation and management strategies. A literature review from 2000 to 2020 was performed via search engines and additional free searches. A buck is an upward leap, usually in addition to forward propulsion, when either both hindlimbs or all four limbs are off the ground with the thoracolumbosacral region raised. Bucking often occurs as a series of such leaps and different manifestations include ‘pronking’, ‘bronking’ and ‘fly bucking’. Causes include excitement, exuberance, defensive behaviour associated with fear, learned behaviour through negative reinforcement or a reaction to musculoskeletal pain. Specific causes of pain include an ill-fitting saddle or girth, thoracolumbar pain, girth region pain, sternal or rib injury, neuropathic pain, sacroiliac joint region pain, referred pain and primary hindlimb lameness. Any of these may be compounded by a rider who is fearful, poorly balanced or crooked. Determination of the underlying cause requires a comprehensive clinical assessment, including assessment of saddle fit for horse and rider and suitability of the horse–rider combination. In some horses, identification of a primary source of pain allows targeted treatment and resolution of pain, but careful retraining is crucial. An understanding of learning behaviour is required for successful rehabilitation. It was concluded that identification of the cause of bucking may enable treatment of primary pain which, when combined with retraining, results in management of bucking behaviour. However, in a minority of horses, dangerous bucking behaviour cannot be reliably resolved, requiring retirement or euthanasia of the horse.